DaVinci

You are still making two large assumptions: 1. That these people would be armed. 2. That they would be willing to kill or die to beat a guy up. Fact is that most people step down when faced with superior force. Most people do not want to get shot. In fact military studies have shown that most soldiers do not shoot to kill till they feel personally threatened. How could it of gotten uglier? They beat the guy to a pulp and the only thing stopping them from beating and raping the woman and killing the kid was either a lack of time or their "goodwill". If it was lack of time, most people when they see a gun duck or run. So you would have just added time to your side. If it was "goodwill" that prevented the killing of the wife or child.... That is a pretty damn scary bet to take: "They will only kill me, they are good people and will leave my wife and child alone". I'd bet that crowd of 30 would look like an old keystone cops movie with all of the bikers scrambling for cover and trying to escape if the guy shot the first person to try and drag him out of the SUV.

YES, and you are an idiot if you don't. And that is just for ME, I'd be a hell of a lot more detailed if my actions effected the people who elected me to represent them. And they do read every law relating to a case they are presiding over. While they might have helpers, how much you wanna bet that check the information?

First above all... We have to recognize that this was NY. So the chances of a law abiding citizen having a gun is next to nothing. But lets assume it was somewhere else. First, you are assuming that there would be a gun fight. You have to make several assumptions for that to happen. First you have to assume that the bikers had guns... But if they had guns then why didn't they just shoot the tires out of the SUV?

Going to the website and buying from it are not the same thing. I know people who went to the website and found the prices to be much more than they could afford. I also know people who went to the website just to see if they could get insurance for less. In fact, a person on an NPR show yesterday suggested that anyone go to the site and do a comparison shop of the exchange. So hits to a site and people buying are not the same.

Absolute nonsense. The US already has 4x the homicides of any other western industrial nation while having the most guns. To claim it would be 260x the rate if guns weren't around to "protect" is just pure BS. I have provided the source, you have provided bleating. The CDC just released a report stating: “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence [...]. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

And he had exactly what power to make sure that happened? If I tell you that Perris will give you free jumps. Is it my fault or Perris's fault if you show up and they make you pay for your jumps?

Wheeler ED and Baron SA. Violence in Our Schools, Hospitals and Public Places: A Prevention and Management Guide. Ventura CA: Pathfinder. In that they state: "The perpetrators of acquaintance and domestic homicide are overwhelmingly vicious aberrants with long histories of violence inflicted upon those close to them." And the FBI's definition of acquaintance and domestic homicide requires only that the killer knew or was related to the decedent. Two drug dealers that are acquainted does not make them "friends", or "Family". Over 3/4 of murderers have long histories of violence against people to INCLUDE friends and family. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] [1] Dawson JB and Lantern PA, US Bureau of Justice Statistics statisticians. "Murder in Families." Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. 1994. p. 5, Table 7. Back to the top [2] US Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Murder in Large Urban Counties, 1988." Washington DC: US Department of Justice. 1993. Back to the top [3] Narloch R. Criminal Homicide in California. Sacramento CA: California Bureau of Criminal Statistics. 1973. pp 53-4. Back to the top [4] Mulvihill D et al. Crimes of Violence: Report of the Task Force on Individual Acts of Violence." Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1969. p 532. Back to the top [5] Wheeler ED and Baron SA. Violence in Our Schools, Hospitals and Public Places: A Prevention and Management Guide.? Ventura CA: Pathfinder. 1993. Back to the top No, I just prove you to be wrong over and over again. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. Source: Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48. Back Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." has been lowered to 2.7 times in "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home". And in an interview Dr. Kellermann stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection. So basically you are ALMOST correct. You are correct that you are more likely to be hurt or killed by someone you know - This part is correct. You totally lose it when you try to blame it on a gun, or act like a gun is the only method used to inflict that harm. Once again, you are blind to anything to the data that does not make guns out to be evil. To Recap: 1. You are more likely to be killed or harmed by an acquaintance than by a stranger. 2. Guns play no special factor in this fact. 3. There are more guns in America than ever before - Violent crime has gone DOWN. 4. There are more people with a CHL/CWP - Violent crime is DOWN and no "Blood running in the street" cries have come true.

Here it shows pictures of a wheel *on the RIGHT side* on its rim.... That does not happen unless you tried to drive on a flat for some period of time. http://nypost.com/2013/10/01/cops-bust-bike-thug/ If you were driving down the highway and a group of motorcyclists pull in front of you and FORCE you to stop.... That should make you more than antsy. We have video that shows the SUV not doing anything of the sort. We have video of the bikes weaving in and around traffic. And my guess is that the bikers were ridding aggressively and started it... Since it is one to one.... Lets discount both OPINIONS that have no supporting evidence. Legal. What is not legal is forcing someone to stop in the middle of the road because you are upset at them for any reason. What is not legal is slashing a tire, or smashing the side of someones car because you are mad at them

It is also a fact that you are more likely to be stabbed by a family member or friend than a random scumbag. You are more likely to be poisoned by a family member or friend than some random scumbag. You are more likely to be suffocated by a family member or friend than some random scumbag. You are more likely to be bludgeoned to death by a family member of friend than some random scumbag. Your point is worthless....

Yep, even with MORE guns being bought everyday. Not really. What it means that if 60% of the population bought guns in the 60's and now only 50% of the population owns firearms that the trend is for fewer homes to have a gun. But you have to take into account that the population has increased in that time period. So fewer household may own firearms, but that does not mean only a few people are stocking up. And even if it did.... So what? As long as there are fewer violent crimes does it matter that I have 1 firearm or 100? It does not matter. The fact is that more guns are in circulation and more people each and every year get a CHL/CWP. The fact is that even if crime rates have not gone DOWN due to CHL/CWP increases... Crime rates have not gone UP like the anti's tried to claim they would... "Blood on the Streets". Again...FALSE. The FBI tracks this kind of data and the gun lobby has no issue with them doing it. The gun lobby had a problem with the CDC tracking it because: 1. It is not a disease. 2. The CDC stated a CLEAR AGENDA. You run a large DZ... Would you support the CDC collecting data on skydiving if they had made many statements that skydiving is dangerous and they want to see it banned?

He pulled in front of and tried to stop the SUV. That is aggressive. The stills WE HAVE SEEN do not show him off the bike. But: 1. Did he turn the video over to the police? 2. Did he help identify the attackers? Or did he just post it to youtube and kept his mouth shut about who was doing the hitting.

...it remains a fact that the person most likely to stab anyone is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag ....it remains a fact that the person most likely to poison anyone is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag ...it remains a fact that the person most likely to suffocate anyone is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag ...it remains a fact that the person most likely to club with a claw hammer anyone is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag ...it remains a fact that the person most likely to beat to death anyone is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag The most likely person to kill another is someone the person knows. This is not earth shattering news. What you have failed to do is make it somehow the result of having a gun in the house. But your first claim "However, it remains a fact that the gun most likely to kill an American is his/her own gun, and the person most likely to shoot an American is a family member or friend" Is only true if you count suicides.

Some of them, but the number he has been throwing around has been proven to use suicides in the calculation. Homicides in 2011: 8,583. Suicides in 2011: 38,364 Gun suicides in 2011: 19,392 Number of emergency department visits for self-inflicted injury: 713,000 If he takes out suicides, his number is no longer valid. And the Sandy Hook shooter would have been considered a suicide and counted in the numbers he is trying to use. Interesting tidbit.... Look at this: http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/01/suicide-vs-homicide-by-state-per-100000/ There are four "states" where homicide beats suicide in deaths. Washington DC, Puerto Rico, Louisiana, and Maryland.

The motorcyclists were driving aggressively. When they stopped the SUV one motorcyclist started bashing the side of the SUV with his helmet and from reports, two motorcyclists slashed the tires of the SUV. If I were in the same situation, I'd have gunned it also. And any of the aggressive motorcyclists that were in the way.... I'd have run them over in a second. I would then tell my wife to call 911, and I would draw my pistol from my holster. As I was trying to evade, if a bike got in my way and tried to slow me down, I'd mow the blocker over as well. If they managed to stop me before the police showed up, the first guy to reach in the vehicle would get shot. And every other person reaching into the vehicle would also get shot. The SUV tried to get away, the motorcyclists CHASED THEM DOWN. Regardless of how this started, the SUV tried to get away from the conflict and the motorcycle group would not let them and were attacking the SUV at every opportunity.

Since it was from 2010.... Is it Obama's or Bush's fault according to you?

Well.. thats actually crap. I see you didn't bother to look at the sources. Homicides 2011: 8,583 Accidental deaths 2011: 851 The data does not support your claim. Again, if you count SUICIDES then your data might be correct.

And in Utopia, criminals would follow gun laws. Crap numbers if you do not count suicides. Also gun deaths are DROPPING. They are currently at the levels in to 70's. And looking at the FBI stats they are still going down. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 2007: 10,129 2008: 9,528 2009: 9,199 2010: 8,874 2011: 8,583 And this in-spite of more firearms being made every single day. In the United States, annual unintentional shooting deaths total 2011: 851 2010: 606 2009: 554 2008: 592 2007: 613 2006: 642 2005: 789 2004: 649 2003: 730 2002: 762 2001: 802 2000: 776 1999: 824 The rate of homicide is down: In the United States, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is 2011: 5.11 2010: 5.27 2009: 5.48 2008: 5.86 2007: 6.10 2006: 6.22 2005: 6.13 2004: 5.93 2003: 6.11 2002: 6.13 2001: 7.13 2000: 5.96 1999: 6.05 1998: 5.19 1997: 6.7 1996: 7.3 1995: 8.1 1993: 9.9 AND your number of "death in the home" also counts JUSTIFIABLE self defense uses. So if a husband is beating his wife and she shoots him... Yep, you are counting that use in your numbers. So you count domestic violence self defense uses. You count suicides. But over all, gun crime is DOWN. And accidental deaths are less than 2% of the total number. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/FIREARM_DEATHS_AND_DEATH_RATES.pdf

Another source http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/09/kenyan-heros-harrowing-story-of-rescues-in-mall-massacre/ From the article: “Luckily on that particular day I had actually carried my licensed gun with me so I didn’t have to go back home to waste time and pick up a gun, I went straight to the mall.” “I think anybody in the situation would have probably done the same thing,” he said. “[If] he was armed and thinking the worst about his family he would have probably done the same thing.” Seems the gun played a major factor in him deciding to act.

Problem is I am neither, but you want me to have to jump through a bunch of hoops to prove it to you.... Whatever happened to innocent till proven guilty? Would you support a gay couple having to jump through a bunch of hoops to get married? Like a background check and a psych eval to make sure they are of sound mind? Would you support gay couples having to pay say a 500 dollar tax to get married than straight coups don't have to pay? Would you support gay couples having to get a signature from an LEO before they can get married? Would you support gay couples having to register where they live? Because all of these are things you have suggested gun owners should have to do.

While I agree with you, let's be clear that the overwhelming majority of voters anywhere in the USA (except maybe Oshkosh) do not consider general aviation to be of any concern whatsoever. In fact the majority likely consider GA to be a noisy nuisance if they think about it at all. Making excuses? Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley ordered city crews to bulldoze the runway at night, and without the 30-day advance warning required by FAA regulations. The city also had to pay over a million dollars back to the Fed... A great use of tax payer dollars. Oh, and the reason? Daley claimed it was to secure down town from a 9/11 style attack. Never mind that the airspace downtown went from "D" to "E". So actually making it less safe.

Aw how cute... More personal attacks when you run out of logical debate. So what suggestions HAVE YOU presented to stop double felons from getting an illegal gun and shooting up a park... you know other than trying to prevent honest citizens from being able to own something? And I see you can't answer how YOU seemed to have missed the topic of THIS THREAD: "Armed CITIZENS stopping MASS SHOOTINGS" instead of your distraction tactic. Pretty much you are on the ropes... Best thrown in the towel.

They had a reasonable fear... Obama said he wanted to ban them. HE SAID THAT. You can't blame a person for thinking the President is not lying. Besides the NRA members (Ironically, I am not one) are no worse than your ilk who support the VPC. FALSE. Read US v Miller 1939. "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." "the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” So the AR15 is in common use, it is the single most popular semi automatic rifle ever made. And it is of a design that could be very useful in a militia. Add in Heller where they state the right is an INDIVIDUAL right. Then add in McDonald where they say it is applied to the States... And in fact you have the right to own an AR15. You are going to try and claim that the Court did say some restrictions are allowed... Yep: 1. prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill 2. laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings 3. or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms You are going to try and claim the 'dangerous and unusual' but the AR is not dangerous, it functions quite well and as already shown it is not unusual since it is the most common semi auto rifle in the US. So you are wrong you are just as entitled to own an AR as you are entitled to vote.

Then explain why the SENATE is not going to ratify it?

You mean like being allowed to own firearms?

Say, like a hunter owning firearms? Indeed. Why do you hate hunters? I don't.... I have never hunted, but I don't hate them. You seem to dislike anyone that wants to own a firearm.